Do pro-life Democrats oppose restrictive abortion legislation?
In the comments of the post entitled "Tired of the Pro-Choice Interests" (scroll down to May 24th), Dustin Ingalls makes an interesting claim:

[B]eing pro-life for a Democrat is not usually the same thing as it is for a Republican. It's usually a personal position for Democrats, while Republicans mean that they want to actively advance legislation that restricts abortion rights.

I say this hypothesis is interesting because the degree to which it is true should determine the electoral strategy of abortion-rights activists.

If Democrats can be counted upon to oppose restrictions of abortion rights, then NARAL and similar organizations should work to ensure a Democratic majority, regardless of candidates’ stances. Conversely, if pro-life Democrats sometimes vote to restrict abortion rights, it makes sense for the organizations to pursue a more complex strategy, including supporting strong pro-choice candidates of all parties. Dustin clearly thinks that the former strategy is the correct one:

Justin: "[T]he best way to protect a women's right to choose would actually be to elect a Democratic Senator, even if he is personally pro-life...[H]elping Democrats win a majority in the Senate is the most important thing."
Dustin: "Exactly."

But do Democrats really avoid restricting abortion rights? Not at all.

Let's look at examples of "partial-birth" abortion bans on both the state and federal level. As I will show, bans on these procedures restrict access to abortion. If Dustin's hypothesis is correct, Democrats – even those identifying as pro-life - would not vote in favor of them. And furthermore, under Dustin’s hypothesis "partial-birth" restrictions would not pass in a Democrat-controlled legislative body. Remember, Dustin's making a distinction between pro-life Democrats and pro-life Republicans, stating that even pro-life Democrats avoid abortion restrictions.

In July 1997, the Rhode Island General Assembly approved a ban on "partial-birth" abortions. On a number of counts, this ban was astonishingly restrictive:

1. It did not include an exception for the woman's health; nor did it contain an adequate life exception.
2. The law effectively required the woman to obtain the consent of her sexual partner and parents before having the abortion.
3. The law was vague and failed to clearly define which procedures were prohibited.
.

(Source.)

A district court ruled that the law was "unrestrained and pernicious to the Constitution" and would "strangle constitutional rights." In 1999, a federal judge struck down the ban. (Source.)

I'm not sure how anyone could disagree that this legislation restricted abortion rights. But many Democrats in the Rhode Island Senate voted for the ban; indeed, it would never have had a chance without Democratic support. Here's how the vote broke down:

In favor of the ban: 28 Democrats; 5 Republicans
Not in favor of the ban: 11 Democrats; 4 Republicans
Not voting: 2 Democrats

Source: Providence Journal-Bulletin, June 26, 1997.

In 2003, the U.S. Congress passed a similar ban on "partial-birth" abortion. Like the Rhode Island ban, the legislation did not contain an exception for the health of the mother. And so far, it's met the same fate as the Rhode Island law; three judges have found it unconstitutional.

Here are the names of the Senate Democrats who voted in favor of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003: Bayh, Biden, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Dorgan, Johnson, Landrieu, Leahy, Lincoln, Nelson, Pryor, and Reid. (Source.)

I have a hunch that a comprehensive study of federal and state politics would mirror what I've shown here: Democrats do not always vote along party lines in support of abortion rights.

I suspect that Dustin's original statement came out of a misreading of this essay that's been filtering around the Internet:

We have to strip that language advantage over the issue of abortion away from the Republicans. That is, we can stay where we are, winning handily on the issue of pro-choice but losing over the issue of regulating abortion, or we can totally take the issue away from the Republicans, and put them on the defensive.

[...]

So if a politician says I am pro-life and Democrat, lets hear them out. The Republicans will snicker and respond, no you aren't. And if the politician responds by saying yes I am, I do not like to see abortions, but will not legislate or have the government intruding into this private decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor. That's a politician that belongs in the Democratic Party. And boom, this is a politician that's going to put the Republicans on the defensive.

Let's be clear: this essay is advising pro-choice Democrats to recast themselves as "pro-life" in order to win at the ballot box. Personal opposition to abortion coupled with disapproval for government intrusion is the position formerly known as "pro-choice." Now, if pro-choice Democrats want to call themselves "pro-life" in the context of framing the abortion debate, I have no quibble. But we must not mistake this language for a literal change in policy on the part of true pro-life Democrats. The original pro-lifers will still favor governmental abortion restrictions.

***

This discussion originally came out of debate over NARAL's recent endorsement of Republican Lincoln Chafee. So I'll point out that as usual Ampersand of Alas, a Blog has an insightful summary and analysis.